> When we moved S3 to a strong consistency model, the customer reception was stronger than any of us expected.
This feels like one of those Apple-like stories about inventing and discovering an amazing, brand new feature that delighted customers but not mentioning the motivating factor of the competing products that already had it. A more honest sentence might have been "After years of customers complaining that the other major cloud storage providers had strong consistency models, customers were relieved when we finally joined the party."
I mainly use GCP but keep hearing how great AWS is in comparison.
Imagine my surprise when porting some GCS code to S3 last year and realizing there is no way to get consistency guarantees without external lock service.
You get this same pattern with a lot of stories about software. Features are often implemented in a way that’s simple for the developers, but not really a great fit for what’s actually needed. Then typically some story is given to justify why the resulting limitations or usability issues are actually a good thing.
S3 is up there as one of my favorite tech products ever. Over the years I've used it for all sorts of things but most recently I've been using it to roll my own DB backup system.
One of the things that shocks me about the system is the level of object durability. A few years ago I was taking an AWS certification course and learned that their durability number means that one can expect to loose data about once every 10,000 years. Since then anytime I talk about S3's durability I bring up that example and it always seems to convey the point for a layperson.
And it's "simplicity" is truly elegant. When I first started using S3 I thought of it as a dumb storage location but as I learned more I realized that it had some wild features that they all managed to hide properly so when you start it looks like a simple system but you can gradually get deeper and deeper until your S3 bucket is doing some pretty sophisticated stuff.
Last thing I'll say is, you know your API is good when "S3 compatable API" is a selling point of your competitors.
> Last thing I'll say is, you know your API is good when "S3 compatable API" is a selling point of your competitors.
Counter-point: You know that you're the dominant player. See: .psd, .pdf, .xslx. Not particularly good file types, yet widely supported by competitor products.
It’s designed for that level of durability, but it’s only as good as a single change or correlated set of hardware failures that can quickly change the theoretical durability model. Or even corrupting data is possible too.
I've used it for server backups too, just a simple webserver. Built a script that takes the webserver files, config files and makes a database dump, packages it all into a .tar.gz file on monday mornings, and uploads it to S3 using a "write only into this bucket" access key. In S3 I had it set up so it sends me an email whenever a new file was added, and that anything older than 3 weeks is put into cold storage.
Of course, I lost that script when the server crashed, the one thing I didn't back up properly.
> but as I learned more I realized that it had some wild features that they all managed to hide properly so when you start it looks like a simple system but you can gradually get deeper and deeper until your S3 bucket is doing some pretty sophisticated stuff.
Over the years working on countless projects I’ve come to realize that the more “easy” something looks to an end user, the more work it took to make it that way. It takes a lot of work to create and polish something to the state where you’d call it graceful, elegant and beautiful.
There are exceptions for sure, but often times hidden under every delightful interface is an iceberg of complexity. When something “just works” you know there was a hell of a lot of effort that went into making it so.
I did a GCP training a while back, and the anecdote from one of the trainers was that the Cloud Storage team (GCP’s S3-compatible product) hadn’t lost a single byte of data since GCS had existed as a product. Crazy at that scale.
> I’ve seen other examples where customers guess at new APIs they hope that S3 will launch, and have scripts that run in the background probing them for years! When we launch new features that introduce new REST verbs, we typically have a dashboard to report the call frequency of requests to it, and it’s often the case that the team is surprised that the dashboard starts posting traffic as soon as it’s up, even before the feature launches, and they discover that it’s exactly these customer probes, guessing at a new feature.
This surprises me; has anyone done something similar and benefitted from it? It's the sort of thing where I feel like you'd maybe get a result 1% of the time if that, and then only years later when everyone has moved on from the problem they were facing at the time...
It's funny—S3 started as a "simple" storage service, and now it's handling entire table abstractions. Reminds me how SQL was declared dead every few years, yet here we are, building ever more complex data solutions on top of supposedly simple foundations.
I instinctively distrust any software or protocol that implies it is "simple" in its name: SNMP, SMTP, TFTP, SQS, etc. They're usually the cause of an equal or more amount of headaches than alternatives.
Maybe such solutions are a reaction to previous more "complex" solutions, and they do indeed start simple, but inevitably get swallowed by the complexity monster with age.
The true hero in AWS is its authentication and accounting infrastructure.
Most people don't even think about it. But authenticating trillions of operations per second is why AWS works. And the accounting and billing. Anyone that does authentication knows how hard it is. At AWS' scale it's well, the pinnacle of distributed systems.
little history: When we were getting ready to do an API at DigitalOcean I got asked "uhm... how should it feel?" I thought about that for about 11 seconds and said "if all our APIs feel as good as S3, it should be fine" - it's a good API.
It's only sad that the SDKs are often on the heavy side, I remember that the npm package used to be multiple megabytes as it bundled large parts of the core AWS SDK. Nowadays, I believe it's still around half a megabyte.
Now add versioning, replication, logging, encryption, ACLs, CDN integration, event triggering (Lambda). I could go on. These are just some other features I can name off the top of my head. And it all has to basically run with zero downtime, 24x7...
Anyone can create a CRUD API. It takes a _lot_ of work to make a CRUD API that scales with high availability and a reasonable consistency model. The vast majority of engineers would take months or years to write demo.
If you don't believe me, you might want to reconsider how skilled the average developer _really_ is.
I used to have the same opinion until I built my own CDN. Scaling something like that is no joke, let alone ensuring you handle consistency and caching properly.
A basic implementation is simple, but at S3 scale, that's a whole different ball game.
That’s when you really know you hid all the complexity well. When people call your globally replicated data store with granular permissions, sophisticated data retention policies, versioning, and manage to have, what, seven (ten?) nines or something, “simple”.
No problem. I’m sure ChatGPT could cook up a replacement in a weekend. Like Dropbox it’s just rsync with some scripts that glue it together. How hard could it possibly be?
I mean people serve entire websites right out of s3 buckets. Using it as a crude CDN of sorts.
The point of the article is that making a service at S3's scale with such a simple API exposed to the end user, without exposing the provisioning and durability and security and performance to make it all work...
I have a feeling that economies of scale have a point of diminishing returns. At what point does it become more costly and complicated to store your data on S3 versus just maintaining a server with RAID disks somewhere?
S3 is an engineering marvel, but it's an insanely complicated backend architecture just to store some files.
That's going to depend a lot on what your needs are, particularly in terms of redundancy and durability. S3 takes care of a lot of that for you.
One server with a RAID array can survive, usually, 1 or maybe 2 drive failures. The remaining drives in the array will have to do more work when a failed drive is replaced and data is copied to the new array member. This sometimes leads to additional failures before replacement completes, because all the drives in the array are probably all the same model bought at the same time and thus have similar manufacturing quality and materials. This is part of why it's generally said that RAID != backup.
You can make a local backup to something like another server with its own storage, external drives, or tape storage. Capacity, recovery time, and cost varies a lot across the available options here. Now you're protected against the original server failing, but you're not protected against location-based impacts - power/network outages, weather damage/flooding, fire, etc.
You can make a remote backup. That can be in a location you own / control, or you can pay someone else to use their storage.
Each layer of redundancy adds cost and complexity.
AWS says they can guarantee 99.999999999% durability and 99.99% availability. You can absolutely design your own system that meets those thresholds, but that is far beyond what one server with a RAID array can do.
Probably never. The complexity is borne by Amazon. Even before any of the development begins if you want a RAID setup with some sort of decent availability you've already multiplied your server costs by the number of replicas you'd need. It's a Sisyphean task that also has little value for most people.
Much like twitter it's conceptually simple but it's a hard problem to solve at any scale beyond a toy.
One interesting thing about S3 is the vast scale of it. E.g. if you need to store 3 PB of data you might need 150 HDDs + redundancy, but if you store it on S3 it's chopped up and put on tens of thousands of HDDs, which helps with IOPS and throughput. Of course that's shared with others, which is why smart placement is key, so that hot objects are spread out.
There is a diminishing return of what percentage you save, sure. But amazon will always be at that edge. They already have amortized the equipment, labour, administration, electricity, storage, cooling, etc.
They also already have support for storage tiering, replication, encryption, ACLs, integration with other services (from web access to sending notifications of storage events to lambda, sqs, etc). Uou get all of this whether you're saving 1 eight bit file or trillions of gigabyte sized ones.
There are reasons why you may need to roll your own storage setup (regulatory, geographic, some other unique reason), but you'll never be more economical than S3, especially if the storage is mostly sitting idle.
> At what point does it become more costly and complicated to store your data on S3 versus just maintaining a server with RAID disks somewhere?
It's more costly immediately. S3 storage prices are above what you would pay even for triply redundant media and you have to pay for data transfer at a very high rate to both send and receive data to the public internet.
It's far less complicated though. You just create a bucket and you're off to the races. Since the S3 API endpoints are all public there's not even a delay for spinning up the infrastructure.
Where S3 shines for me is two things. Automatic lifecycle management. Objects can be moved in between storage classes based on the age of the object and even automatically deleted after expiration. The second is S3 events which are also _durable_ and make S3 into an actual appliance instead of just a convenient key/value store.
Since everything you need to run "a full SPA" is to serve some static files over an internet connection I'm not sure how that tells you anything interesting about the platform. It's basically the simplest thing a web server can do.
"I think one thing that we’ve learned from the work on Tables is that it’s these _properties of storage_ that really define S3 much more than the object API itself."
Between the above philosophy, S3 Tables, and Express One Zone (SSD perf), it makes me really curious about what other storage modalities S3 moves towards supporting going forward.
It's great that they added iceberg support I guess, but it's a shame that they also removed S3 Select. S3 Select wasn't perfect. For instance the performance was no where near as good as using DuckDB to scan a parquet file, since duck is smart, and S3 Select does a full table scan.
But S3 Select is nearly way cheaper that the new iceberg support. So if your needs are only for reading one parquet snapshot, we no need to do updates, then this change is not welcome.
Great article though, and I was pleased to see this at the end:
> We’ve invested in a collaboration with DuckDB to accelerate Iceberg support in Duck,
For those interested in S3 Tables which is referenced in this blog post, we literally just published this overview on what they are and cost considerations of them that people might find interesting: https://www.vantage.sh/blog/amazon-s3-tables
Lakehouse is an architecture defined to overcome the limitations associated with an immutable object store. It is already in my eyes introducing unnecessary complexity (i.e. at which point do I just need to transition to a proper database, even for larger scales (that cannot be accommodated by a database?), when is a tiered data architecture with stream materialisation snapshots actually simpler to reason about and more economic etc.)
I would hope that S3 could introduce a change in the operation of said fundamental building block (immutable object), rather than just slap an existing downstream abstraction. That's not what I call design for simplicity. As an external observer, I would think that's internal amazon moat management with some co-branding strategy.
Lots of comments here talking about how great S3 is.
Anyone willing to give a cliff notes about what's good about it?
I've been running various sites and apps for a decade, but have never touched S3 because the bandwidth costs are 1, sometimes 2 orders of magnitude more expensive than other static hosting solutions.
One underappreciated feature of S3 - that allowed it to excel in workloads like the Tables feature described in the article - is that it's able to function as the world's highest throughout network filesystem. And you don't have to do anything to configure it (as the article points out). By storing data on S3, you get to access the full cross-sectional bandwidth of EC2, which is colossal. For effectively all workloads, you will max out your network connection before S3's. This enables workloads that can't scale anywhere else. Things like data pipelines generating unplanned hundred-terabit-per-second traffic spikes with hotspots that would crash any filesystem cluster I've ever seen. And you don't have to pay a lot for it- once you're done using the bandwidth, you can archive the data elsewhere or delete it.
There are a few things about S3 that I find extremely powerful.
The biggest is, if I need to store some data. I know what the data is (so I don't need to worry about needing to in a moment notice traverse a file structure for example, I know my filenames), I can store that data, I don't need to figure out how much space I need ahead of time and it is there when I need it. Maybe it automatically moves to another storage tier to save me some money but I can reliably assume it will be there when I need it. Just that simplicity alone is worth a lot, I never need to think later that I need to expand some space, possibly introducing downtime depending on the setup, maybe dealing with partitions, etc.
Related to that is static hosting. I have ran a CDN and other static content out of S3 with cloud front in front of it. The storage cost was almost non existent due to how little actual data we were talking about and only paid for cloudfront costs when there were requests. If nothing was being used it was almost "free". Even when being used it was very cheap for my use cases.
Creating daily inventory reports in S3 is awesome.
But the thing that really is almost "magic" once you understand its quirks. Athena (and quick sight built on top of that and similar tools). The ability to store data in S3 like inventory reports that I already mentioned, access logs, cloud watch logs, or any structured data that you may not need to query often enough to warrant a full long running database. It may cost you a few dollars to run your Athena query and it is not going to be super quick, but if you know what you're looking for it is amazing.
S3 has often fallen into a "catch all" solution for me whenever I need to store data large enough that I don't want to keep it in a database (RDBMS or Redis).
Need to save a file somewhere? Dump it in S3. It's generally affordable (obviously dependent on scale and use), fast, easy, and super configurable.
Being able to expose something to the outside, or with a presigned URL is a huge advantage as well.
Off the top of my head, I think of application storage generally in this tier ordering (just off the top of my head based on the past few years of software development, no real deep thought here):
1. General application data that needs to be read, written, and related - RDBMS
2. Application data that needs to be read and written fast, no relations - Redis
3. Application data that is mostly stored and read - S3
Replace any of those with an equivalent storage layer.
Do you need to replace your SFTP server? S3. Do you need to backup TB of db files? S3. Do you need a high performance web cache? S3. Host your SPA? S3 backs cloudfront. Shared filesystem between desktop computers? Probably a bad idea but you can do it with S3. Need a way for customers to securely drop files somewhere? Signed S3 URI. Need to store metrics? Logs? S3. Load balancer logs? S3. And it's cheaper than an EBS volume, and doesn't need resizing every couple of quarters. And there are various SLAs which make it cheaper (Glacier) or more expensive (High Performance). S3 makes a great storage backend for a lot of use cases especially when your data is coming in from multiple regions across the globe. There are some quibbles about eventual consistency but in general it is an easy backend to build for.
The bandwidth is free within AWS, the ingress is also free
I've used it lately in the following setup
- stuff on internet push their data into my bucket => this is mostly free (you only pay s3 operations)
- on object creation, an event is fired and a lambda is spawned => this is free
- the lambda code reads the object => this is mostly free (again, you only pay s3 operations)
- the lambda process the data, trim it, repackage it, compress it => you pay for the compute
- the lambda store the resulting data somewhere else and delete the s3 object => you pay the egress
S3 is great for being able to stick files somewhere and not have to think about any of the surrounding infrastructure on an ongoing basis [1]. You don't have to worry about keeping a RAID server, swapping out disks when one fails, etc.
For static hosting, it's fine, but as you say, it's not necessarily the cheapest, though you can bring the cost down by sticking a CDN (Cloudflare/CloudFront) in front of it. There are other use cases where it really shines though.
[1]: I say ongoing basis because you will need to figure out your security controls, etc. at the beginning so it's not totally no-thought.
I really enjoy using S3 to serve arbitrary blobs. It perfectly solves the problem space for my use cases.
I avoid getting tangled in authentication mess by simply naming my files using type4 GUIDs and dumping them in public buckets. The file name is effectively the authentication token and expiration policies are used to deal with the edges.
This has been useful for problems like emailing customers gigantic reports and transferring build artifacts between systems. Having a stable URL that "just works" everywhere easily pays for the S3 bill in terms of time & frustration saved.
My favorite use case for S3 API-compatible solutions: I often run into systems that generate lots of arbitrary data that only have temporary importance. A common example might be intermediate build artifacts, or testing ephemera (browser screenshots, etc). Things that are needed for X number of months and then just need to disappear.
Yeah, we can dump those to a filesystem. But then we have to ask which filesystem? What should the directory layout be? If there are millions or billions of objects, walking the whole tree gets expensive. Do we write a script to clean everything up? Run it via cron or some other job runner?
With S3, you just write your artifact to S3 with a TTL and it gets deleted automagically when it should. No cron jobs, no walking the whole tree. And you can set up other lifecycle options if you need it moved to other (cheaper) storage later on, backups, versioning, and whatever else.
For on-prem, you have Minio, Garage, or SeaweedFS. These are pretty nice to deploy the servers however you need for the level of reliability/durability you require.
AWS typically considers the "GA" milestone as the "public launch" date, which is silly because the criteria for what is good enough for GA has changed over the years.
S3 was one of the first offerings coming out of AWS right? It’s pretty legendary and a great concept to begin with. You can tell by how much sense it makes and then trying to wrap your ahead around the web dev world pre-S3.
? The web dev world pre-S3 was pretty much the same, but you stored your files on a regular server (and set up your own redundancy and backup strategy). Not that much different to be honest from an end user's point of view.
If you read the article, they say that exactly. Its by Dr Werner Vogels, they know exactly what goes into S3, since they are a principal engineer on the project.
if only metadata could be queried without processing a csv output file first, imagine storing thumbnails in there even! copied objects had actual events, not something you have to dig cloudtrail for, you could get last update time from a bucket to make caching easier
whoops. I was wrong! you can store base64 encoded metadata in the object then run a HEAD request to get it, but its limited to 2kb.
also, you ~can~ query the metadata, but its latency is more suited to batch processing and not lambdas
Table stakes is a poker term meaning the absolute minimum amount you are allowed to bet. So the title translates to "In S3, simplicity is the bare minimum" or "In S3, simplicity is so important that if we didn't have it, we might as well not even have S3."
Clicked on the article thinking it was about S3 Graphics, the company that made the graphics chip in my first PC. Now I see it's some amazon cloud storage thing.
CobrastanJorji|11 months ago
This feels like one of those Apple-like stories about inventing and discovering an amazing, brand new feature that delighted customers but not mentioning the motivating factor of the competing products that already had it. A more honest sentence might have been "After years of customers complaining that the other major cloud storage providers had strong consistency models, customers were relieved when we finally joined the party."
progbits|11 months ago
Imagine my surprise when porting some GCS code to S3 last year and realizing there is no way to get consistency guarantees without external lock service.
antonvs|11 months ago
_fat_santa|11 months ago
One of the things that shocks me about the system is the level of object durability. A few years ago I was taking an AWS certification course and learned that their durability number means that one can expect to loose data about once every 10,000 years. Since then anytime I talk about S3's durability I bring up that example and it always seems to convey the point for a layperson.
And it's "simplicity" is truly elegant. When I first started using S3 I thought of it as a dumb storage location but as I learned more I realized that it had some wild features that they all managed to hide properly so when you start it looks like a simple system but you can gradually get deeper and deeper until your S3 bucket is doing some pretty sophisticated stuff.
Last thing I'll say is, you know your API is good when "S3 compatable API" is a selling point of your competitors.
victorp13|11 months ago
Counter-point: You know that you're the dominant player. See: .psd, .pdf, .xslx. Not particularly good file types, yet widely supported by competitor products.
laluser|11 months ago
Cthulhu_|11 months ago
Of course, I lost that script when the server crashed, the one thing I didn't back up properly.
cruffle_duffle|11 months ago
Over the years working on countless projects I’ve come to realize that the more “easy” something looks to an end user, the more work it took to make it that way. It takes a lot of work to create and polish something to the state where you’d call it graceful, elegant and beautiful.
There are exceptions for sure, but often times hidden under every delightful interface is an iceberg of complexity. When something “just works” you know there was a hell of a lot of effort that went into making it so.
angulardragon03|11 months ago
Gys|11 months ago
What does that mean? If I have 1 million objects, I loose 100 per year?
wodenokoto|11 months ago
What do you see as special for S3? Isn’t it just another bucket?
merb|11 months ago
waiwai933|11 months ago
This surprises me; has anyone done something similar and benefitted from it? It's the sort of thing where I feel like you'd maybe get a result 1% of the time if that, and then only years later when everyone has moved on from the problem they were facing at the time...
easton|11 months ago
I'm going to write a script that keeps trying to call ecs:MakeFargateCacheImages.
bentobean|11 months ago
imiric|11 months ago
Maybe such solutions are a reaction to previous more "complex" solutions, and they do indeed start simple, but inevitably get swallowed by the complexity monster with age.
mannyv|11 months ago
Most people don't even think about it. But authenticating trillions of operations per second is why AWS works. And the accounting and billing. Anyone that does authentication knows how hard it is. At AWS' scale it's well, the pinnacle of distributed systems.
neom|11 months ago
flessner|11 months ago
It's only sad that the SDKs are often on the heavy side, I remember that the npm package used to be multiple megabytes as it bundled large parts of the core AWS SDK. Nowadays, I believe it's still around half a megabyte.
alberth|11 months ago
It's essentially just the 4 functions of C.R.U.D done to a file.
Most problems in tech are not that simple.
Note: not knocking the service. just pointing out not all things are so inherently basic (and valuable at the same time).
icedchai|11 months ago
bdcravens|11 months ago
riv991|11 months ago
shepherdjerred|11 months ago
If you don't believe me, you might want to reconsider how skilled the average developer _really_ is.
rglover|11 months ago
A basic implementation is simple, but at S3 scale, that's a whole different ball game.
cruffle_duffle|11 months ago
No problem. I’m sure ChatGPT could cook up a replacement in a weekend. Like Dropbox it’s just rsync with some scripts that glue it together. How hard could it possibly be?
I mean people serve entire websites right out of s3 buckets. Using it as a crude CDN of sorts.
It’s a modern marvel.
jimbokun|11 months ago
...is very difficult.
o10449366|11 months ago
[deleted]
golly_ned|11 months ago
_1tem|11 months ago
S3 is an engineering marvel, but it's an insanely complicated backend architecture just to store some files.
sjsdaiuasgdia|11 months ago
One server with a RAID array can survive, usually, 1 or maybe 2 drive failures. The remaining drives in the array will have to do more work when a failed drive is replaced and data is copied to the new array member. This sometimes leads to additional failures before replacement completes, because all the drives in the array are probably all the same model bought at the same time and thus have similar manufacturing quality and materials. This is part of why it's generally said that RAID != backup.
You can make a local backup to something like another server with its own storage, external drives, or tape storage. Capacity, recovery time, and cost varies a lot across the available options here. Now you're protected against the original server failing, but you're not protected against location-based impacts - power/network outages, weather damage/flooding, fire, etc.
You can make a remote backup. That can be in a location you own / control, or you can pay someone else to use their storage.
Each layer of redundancy adds cost and complexity.
AWS says they can guarantee 99.999999999% durability and 99.99% availability. You can absolutely design your own system that meets those thresholds, but that is far beyond what one server with a RAID array can do.
Tanjreeve|11 months ago
Much like twitter it's conceptually simple but it's a hard problem to solve at any scale beyond a toy.
zerd|11 months ago
Some details in https://www.allthingsdistributed.com/2023/07/building-and-op... / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sc3J4McebHE
Cthulhu_|11 months ago
The long and short of it is that getting anywhere near the redundancy, reliability, performance etc of S3, you're spending A Lot of money.
hylaride|11 months ago
They also already have support for storage tiering, replication, encryption, ACLs, integration with other services (from web access to sending notifications of storage events to lambda, sqs, etc). Uou get all of this whether you're saving 1 eight bit file or trillions of gigabyte sized ones.
There are reasons why you may need to roll your own storage setup (regulatory, geographic, some other unique reason), but you'll never be more economical than S3, especially if the storage is mostly sitting idle.
timewizard|11 months ago
It's more costly immediately. S3 storage prices are above what you would pay even for triply redundant media and you have to pay for data transfer at a very high rate to both send and receive data to the public internet.
It's far less complicated though. You just create a bucket and you're off to the races. Since the S3 API endpoints are all public there's not even a delay for spinning up the infrastructure.
Where S3 shines for me is two things. Automatic lifecycle management. Objects can be moved in between storage classes based on the age of the object and even automatically deleted after expiration. The second is S3 events which are also _durable_ and make S3 into an actual appliance instead of just a convenient key/value store.
arnath|11 months ago
jorams|11 months ago
ellisv|11 months ago
It's always crazy to me that people will run a could be static site on Netlify/Vercel/etc.
rook1|11 months ago
Between the above philosophy, S3 Tables, and Express One Zone (SSD perf), it makes me really curious about what other storage modalities S3 moves towards supporting going forward.
diroussel|11 months ago
But S3 Select is nearly way cheaper that the new iceberg support. So if your needs are only for reading one parquet snapshot, we no need to do updates, then this change is not welcome.
Great article though, and I was pleased to see this at the end:
> We’ve invested in a collaboration with DuckDB to accelerate Iceberg support in Duck,
StratusBen|11 months ago
1a527dd5|11 months ago
I can't make head or tails of the beginning of this sentence:-
> Pricing for S3 Tables is all and all not bad.
Otherwise lovely article!
dangoodmanUT|11 months ago
> + 1,000,000 GET requests x ($0.004 / 1,000 requests) = $9
cgio|11 months ago
I would hope that S3 could introduce a change in the operation of said fundamental building block (immutable object), rather than just slap an existing downstream abstraction. That's not what I call design for simplicity. As an external observer, I would think that's internal amazon moat management with some co-branding strategy.
ipsento606|11 months ago
Anyone willing to give a cliff notes about what's good about it?
I've been running various sites and apps for a decade, but have never touched S3 because the bandwidth costs are 1, sometimes 2 orders of magnitude more expensive than other static hosting solutions.
ak217|11 months ago
nerdjon|11 months ago
The biggest is, if I need to store some data. I know what the data is (so I don't need to worry about needing to in a moment notice traverse a file structure for example, I know my filenames), I can store that data, I don't need to figure out how much space I need ahead of time and it is there when I need it. Maybe it automatically moves to another storage tier to save me some money but I can reliably assume it will be there when I need it. Just that simplicity alone is worth a lot, I never need to think later that I need to expand some space, possibly introducing downtime depending on the setup, maybe dealing with partitions, etc.
Related to that is static hosting. I have ran a CDN and other static content out of S3 with cloud front in front of it. The storage cost was almost non existent due to how little actual data we were talking about and only paid for cloudfront costs when there were requests. If nothing was being used it was almost "free". Even when being used it was very cheap for my use cases.
Creating daily inventory reports in S3 is awesome.
But the thing that really is almost "magic" once you understand its quirks. Athena (and quick sight built on top of that and similar tools). The ability to store data in S3 like inventory reports that I already mentioned, access logs, cloud watch logs, or any structured data that you may not need to query often enough to warrant a full long running database. It may cost you a few dollars to run your Athena query and it is not going to be super quick, but if you know what you're looking for it is amazing.
jjice|11 months ago
Need to save a file somewhere? Dump it in S3. It's generally affordable (obviously dependent on scale and use), fast, easy, and super configurable.
Being able to expose something to the outside, or with a presigned URL is a huge advantage as well.
Off the top of my head, I think of application storage generally in this tier ordering (just off the top of my head based on the past few years of software development, no real deep thought here):
1. General application data that needs to be read, written, and related - RDBMS
2. Application data that needs to be read and written fast, no relations - Redis
3. Application data that is mostly stored and read - S3
Replace any of those with an equivalent storage layer.
hadlock|11 months ago
JackSlateur|11 months ago
I've used it lately in the following setup
=> massive cost reductionwaiwai933|11 months ago
For static hosting, it's fine, but as you say, it's not necessarily the cheapest, though you can bring the cost down by sticking a CDN (Cloudflare/CloudFront) in front of it. There are other use cases where it really shines though.
[1]: I say ongoing basis because you will need to figure out your security controls, etc. at the beginning so it's not totally no-thought.
bob1029|11 months ago
I avoid getting tangled in authentication mess by simply naming my files using type4 GUIDs and dumping them in public buckets. The file name is effectively the authentication token and expiration policies are used to deal with the edges.
This has been useful for problems like emailing customers gigantic reports and transferring build artifacts between systems. Having a stable URL that "just works" everywhere easily pays for the S3 bill in terms of time & frustration saved.
bityard|11 months ago
Yeah, we can dump those to a filesystem. But then we have to ask which filesystem? What should the directory layout be? If there are millions or billions of objects, walking the whole tree gets expensive. Do we write a script to clean everything up? Run it via cron or some other job runner?
With S3, you just write your artifact to S3 with a TTL and it gets deleted automagically when it should. No cron jobs, no walking the whole tree. And you can set up other lifecycle options if you need it moved to other (cheaper) storage later on, backups, versioning, and whatever else.
For on-prem, you have Minio, Garage, or SeaweedFS. These are pretty nice to deploy the servers however you need for the level of reliability/durability you require.
CaffeineLD50|11 months ago
Didn't Microsoft blame their customers for not running updates and using AV? Gosh I guess MS did a fine job. Customers were to blame.
Just like those s3 buckets. Customers ignored the warnings ...
snoman|11 months ago
There’s legitimate use cases for making a bucket public.
What are you advocating for?
Kab1r|11 months ago
Didn't SQS launch publicly earlier than S3?
deanCommie|11 months ago
AWS typically considers the "GA" milestone as the "public launch" date, which is silly because the criteria for what is good enough for GA has changed over the years.
chasd00|11 months ago
Cthulhu_|11 months ago
greatpostman|11 months ago
ecshafer|11 months ago
jacksnipe|11 months ago
brikym|11 months ago
user9999999999|11 months ago
aeyes|11 months ago
https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/introducing-queryable-objec...
huntaub|11 months ago
user9999999999|11 months ago
doktorhladnjak|11 months ago
paulddraper|11 months ago
The S3 API is not "simple."
Authentication being a good part of that.
unknown|11 months ago
[deleted]
conorjh|11 months ago
MillironX|11 months ago
dgfitz|11 months ago
robertwebb|11 months ago
[deleted]
neerajk|11 months ago
[deleted]
ginko|11 months ago
Initially I thought this was about S3 standby mode.
PantaloonFlames|11 months ago
unknown|11 months ago
[deleted]
lizknope|11 months ago